You ask whether certain information is subject to required public disclosure under the Texas
Public Information Act, chapter 552 of the Government Code. Your request was assigned
ID# 124640.

The Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (the "commission") received an open
records request for the names, job titles, and commission divisions of attendees of a
particular meeting that occurred on October 9, 1998. The requestor also seeks all "reports,
notes, minutes, taped recordings, interoffice memos, e-mails, letters, etc. regarding" the
referenced meeting. Finally, the requestor seeks the names of all individuals who received
a copy of an October 13, 1998 letter addressed to the requestor concerning the meeting. You
have submitted to this office as responsive to the request three groups of documents, which
you contend are excepted from required public disclosure pursuant to sections 552.107(1),
552.101 and 552.108, and 552.111 of the Government Code, respectively. We will discuss
each of these groups of documents in turn.

You first contend that the contents of Exhibit B may be withheld from the public pursuant
to section 552.107(1), which protects information coming within the attorney-client
privilege. In instances where an attorney represents a governmental entity, the attorney-client
privilege protects only an attorney's legal advice and the client's confidences made to the
attorney. See Open Records Decision No. 574 (1990). Accordingly, these two classes of
information are the only information contained in the records at issue that may be withheld
pursuant to the attorney-client privilege. After reviewing the contents of Exhibit B, we agree
that portions of some of these documents may properly be withheld from the public pursuant
to section 552.107(1). We have marked the portions of these documents the commission
may withhold under this exception.

You next contend that the contents of Exhibit C may be withheld pursuant to the common-law right of privacy, as incorporated into section 552.101 of the Government Code, as well
as section 552.108. Section 552.101 protects "information considered to be confidential by
law, either constitutional, statutory, or by judicial decision," including information coming
within the common-law right to privacy. Industrial Found. v. Texas Indus. Accident Bd., 540
S.W.2d 668 (Tex. 1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 931 (1977). Common-law privacy protects
information if it is highly intimate or embarrassing, such that its release would be highly
objectionable to a reasonable person, and it is of no legitimate concern to the public. Id. at
683-85. You contend that releasing the identities of the requested commission employees'
names and statements "could impede the safety of" the employees. This office has
previously determined that identifying information about public employees may be withheld
pursuant to common-law privacy only upon a demonstration of "truly exceptional
circumstances such as, for instance, an imminent threat of physical danger." Open Records
Decision No. 169 at 6 (1977). No such showing has been made in this instance. We
therefore conclude that the withholding of commission employees' identities is not warranted
here. See also Gov't Code § 552.022(2) (names of public employees specifically made
"public information").

Section 552.108 of the Government Code excepts from public disclosure certain information
"held by a law enforcement agency or prosecutor that deals with the detection, investigation,
or prosecution of crime." You have not demonstrated that any of the information contained
in Exhibit C meets this criteria. It does not appear to this office that the "security" officers
contracted by the commission are peace officers in the employment of a law-enforcement
agency for purposes of section 552.108, nor have you represented that the commission has
referred, or currently intends to refer, any of these records to a law enforcement agency in
connection with this or any related matter. See, e.g., Open Records Decision Nos. 474
(1987), 372 (1983) (section 552.108 may be invoked by any proper custodian of information
which relates to criminal incident). Consequently, the commission may not withhold any of
the information at issue pursuant to section 552.108.

Finally, you seek to withhold the contents of Exhibit D pursuant to section 552.111 of the
Government Code. Section 552.111 excepts interagency and intra-agency memoranda and
letters, but only to the extent that they contain advice, opinion, or recommendation intended
for use in the entity's policymaking process. Open Records Decision No. 615 at 5 (1993).
The purpose of this section is "to protect from public disclosure advice and opinions on
policy matters and to encourage frank and open discussion within the agency in connection
with its decision-making processes." Austin v. City of San Antonio, 630 S.W.2d 391, 394
(Tex. App.--San Antonio 1982, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (emphasis added). In Open Records
Decision No. 615 at 5, this office held that to come within the [section 552.111] exception, information must be related to the policymaking functions of the governmental body. An
agency's policymaking functions do not encompass routine internal
administrative and personnel matters . . . . [Emphasis in original.]

Section 552.111 does not protect facts and written observation of facts and events that are
severable from advice, opinions, and recommendation. ORD 615 at 5. Most of the
information contained in Exhibit D is purely factual in nature. To the extent that opinions
are expressed, we do not believe that the content of most of these documents may properly
be characterized as "policymaking." Rather, most of these documents reflect commission
personnel addressing the manner in which the problems created by a single individual may
best be resolved. We have, however, marked two portions of one memorandum that we
believe may properly be withheld under section 552.111. The remaining information must
be released, except as addressed above.

We are resolving this matter with an informal letter ruling rather than with a published open
records decision. This ruling is limited to the particular records at issue under the facts
presented to us in this request and should not be relied upon as a previous determination
regarding any other records. If you have questions about this ruling, please contact our
office.